e　bearn；　drive　his　cattle　to　pasture；　sow　a　corner　of　a　field；　and　bake　his　bread　by　his　own　fireside。
  But；　no；　each　one　cannot　do　these　things。　　I　hear　it　proclaimed　on　all　sides；　〃Glory　to　labor　and　industry！　to　each　according　to　his　capacity；　to　each　capacity　according　to　its　results！〃　　And　I　see　three…fourths　of　the　human　race　again　despoiled；　the　labor　of　a　few　being　a　scourge　to　the　labor　of　the　rest。
  〃The　problem　is　solved；〃　exclaims　M。　Hennequin。　　〃Property；　the　daughter　of　labor；　can　be　enjoyed　at　present　and　in　the　future　only　under　the　protection　of　the　laws。　　It　has　its　origin　in　natural　law；　it　derives　its　power　from　civil　law；　and　from　the　union　of　these　two　ideas；　LABOR　and　PROTECTION；　positive　legislation　results。〃　。　。　。
  Ah！　THE　PROBLEM　IS　SOLVED！　PROPERTY　IS　THE　DAUGHTER　OF　LABOR！　　What；　then；　is　the　right　of　accession；　and　the　right　of　succession；　and　the　right　of　donation；　&c。；　if　not　the　right　to　become　a　proprietor　by　simple　occupancy？　　What　are　your　laws　concerning　the　age　of　majority；　emancipation；　guardianship；　and　interdiction；　if　not　the　various　conditions　by　which　he　who　is　already　a　laborer　gains　or　loses　the　right　of　occupancy；　that　is；　property？
  Being　unable；　at　this　time；　to　enter　upon　a　detailed　discussion　of　the　Code；　I　shall　content　myself　with　examining　the　three　arguments　oftenest　resorted　to　in　support　of　property。　　1。　APPROPRIATION；　or　the　formation　of　property　by　possession；　2。　THE　CONSENT　OF　MANKIND；　3。　PRESCRIPTION。　　I　shall　then　inquire　into　the　effects　of　labor　upon　the　relative　condition　of　the　laborers　and　upon　property。
  ％　1。The　Land　cannot　be　Appropriated。
  〃It　would　seem　that　lands　capable　of　cultivation　ought　to　be　regarded　as　natural　wealth；　since　they　are　not　of　human　creation；　but　Nature's　gratuitous　gift　to　man；　but　inasmuch　as　this　wealth　is　not　fugitive；　like　the　air　and　water；inasmuch　as　a　field　is　a　fixed　and　limited　space　which　certain　men　have　been　able　to　appropriate；　to　the　exclusion　of　all　others　who　in　their　turn　have　consented　to　this　appropriation；the　land；　which　was　a　natural　and　gratuitous　gift；　has　become　social　wealth；　for　the　use　of　which　we　ought　to　pay。〃SAY：　　POLITICAL　ECONOMY。
  Was　I　wrong　in　saying；　at　the　beginning　of　this　chapter；　that　the　economists　are　the　very　worst　authorities　in　matters　of　legislation　and　philosophy？　　It　is　the　FATHER　of　this　class　of　men　who　clearly　states　the　question；　How　can　the　supplies　of　Nature；　the　wealth　created　by　Providence；　become　private　property？　and　who　replies　by　so　gross　an　equivocation　that　we　scarcely　know　which　the　author　lacks；　sense　or　honesty。　　What；　I　ask；　has　the　fixed　and　solid　nature　of　the　earth　to　do　with　the　right　of　appropriation？　　I　can　understand　that　a　thing　LIMITED　and　STATIONARY；　like　the　land；　offers　greater　chances　for　appropriation　than　the　water　or　the　sunshine；　that　it　is　easier　to　exercise　the　right　of　domain　over　the　soil　than　over　the　atmosphere：　but　we　are　not　dealing　with　the　difficulty　of　the　thing；　and　Say　confounds　the　right　with　the　possibility。　　We　do　not　ask　why　the　earth　has　been　appropriated　to　a　greater　extent　than　the　sea　and　the　air；　we　want　to　know　by　what　right　man　has　appropriated　wealth　WHICH　HE　DID　NOT　CREATE；　AND　WHICH　NATURE　GAVE　TO　HIM　GRATUITOUSLY。
  Say；　then；　did　not　solve　the　question　which　he　asked。　　But　if　he　had　solved　it；　if　the　explanation　which　he　has　given　us　were　as　satisfactory　as　it　is　illogical；　we　should　know　no　better　than　before　who　has　a　right　to　exact　payment　for　the　use　of　the　soil；　of　this　wealth　which　is　not　man's　handiwork。　　Who　is　entitled　to　the　rent　of　the　land？　　The　producer　of　the　land；　without　doubt。　　Who　made　the　land？　　God。　　Then；　proprietor；　retire！
  But　the　creator　of　the　land　does　not　sell　it：　he　gives　it；　and；　in　giving　it；　he　is　no　respecter　of　persons。　　Why；　then；　are　some　of　his　children　regarded　as　legitimate；　while　others　are　treated　as　bastards？　　If　the　equality　of　shares　was　an　original　right；　why　is　the　inequality　of　conditions　a　posthumous　right？
  Say　gives　us　to　understand　that　if　the　air　and　the　water　were　not　of　a　FUGITIVE　nature；　they　would　have　been　appropriated。　　Let　me　observe　in　passing　that　this　is　more　than　an　hypothesis；　it　is　a　reality。　　Men　have　appropriated　the　air　and　the　water；　I　will　not　say　as　often　as　they　could；　but　as　often　as　they　have　been　allowed　to。
  The　Portuguese；　having　discovered　the　route　to　India　by　the　Cape　of　Good　Hope；　pretended　to　have　the　sole　right　to　that　route；　and　Grotius；　consulted　in　regard　to　this　matter　by　the　Dutch　who　refused　to　recognize　this　right；　wrote　expressly　for　this　occasion　his　treatise　on　the　〃Freedom　of　the　Seas；〃　to　prove　that　the　sea　is　not　liable　to　appropriation。
  The　right　to　hunt　and　fish　used　always　to　be　confined　to　lords　and　proprietors；　to…day　it　is　leased　by　the　government　and　communes　to　whoever　can　pay　the　license…fee　and　the　rent。　　To　regulate　hunting　and　fishing　is　an　excellent　idea；　but　to　make　it　a　subject　of　sale　is　to　create　a　monopoly　of　air　and　water。
  What　is　a　passport？　　A　universal　recommendation　of　the　traveller's　person；　a　certificate　of　security　for　himself　and　his　property。　　The　treasury；　whose　nature　it　is　to　spoil　the　best　things；　has　made　the　passport　a　means　of　espionage　and　a　tax。　　Is　not　this　a　sale　of　the　right　to　travel？
  Finally；　it　is　permissible　neither　to　draw　water　from　a　spring　situated　in　another's　grounds　without　the　permission　of　the　proprietor；　because　by　the　right　of　accession　the　spring　belongs　to　the　possessor　of　the　soil；　if　there　is　no　other　claim；　nor　to　pass　a　day　on　his　premises　without　paying　a　tax；　nor　to　look　at　a　court；　a　garden；　or　an　orchard；　without　the　consent　of　the　proprietor；　nor　to　stroll　in　a　park　or　an　enclosure　against　the　owner's　will：　every　one　is　allowed　to　shut　himself　up　and　to　fence　himself　in。　　All　these　prohibitions　are　so　many　positive　interdictions；　not　only　of　the　land；　but　of　the　air　and　water。　　We　who　belong　to　the　proletaire　class：　property　excommunicates　us！　　_Terra；　et　aqua；　et　aere；　et　igne　interdicti　sumus_。
  Men　could　not　appropriate　the　most　fixed　of　all　the　elements　without　appropriating　the　three　others；　since；　by　French　and　Roman　law；　property　in　the　surface　carries　with　it　property　from　zenith　to　nadir_Cujus　est　solum；　ejus　est　usque　ad　caelum_。　　Now；　if　the　use　of　water；　air；　and　fire　excludes　property；　so　does　the　use　of　the　soil。　　This　chain　of　reasoning　seems　to　have　been　presented　by　M。　Ch。　Comte；　in　his　〃Treatise　on　Property；〃　chap。　5。
  〃If　a　man　should　be　deprived　of　air　for　a　few　moments　only；　he　would　cease　to　exist；　and　a　partial　deprivation　would　cause　him　severe　suffering；　a　partial　or　complete　deprivation　of　food　would　produce　like　effects　upon　him　though　less　suddenly；　it　would　be　the　same；　at　least　in　certain　climates！　were　he　deprived　of　all　clothing　and　shelter。　。　。　。　　To　sustain　life；　then；　man　needs　continually　to　appropriate　many　different　things。　　But　these　things　do　not　exist　in　like　proportions。　　Some；　such　as　the　light　of　the　stars；　the　atmosphere　of　the　earth；　the　water　composing　the　seas　and　oceans；　exist　in　such　large　quantities　that　men　cannot　perceive　any　sensible　increase　or　diminution；　each　one　can　appropriate　as　much　as　his　needs　require　without　detracting　from　the　enjoyment　of　others；　without　causing　them　the　least　harm。　　Things　of　this　sort　are；　so　to　speak；　the　common　property　of　the　human　race；　the　only　duty　imposed　upon　each　individual　in　this　regard　is　that　of　infringing　not　at　all　upon　the　rights　of　others。〃
  Let　us　complete　the　argument　of　M。　Ch。　Comte。　　A　man　who　should　be　prohibited　from　walking　in　the　highways；　from　resting　in　the　fields；　from　taking　shelter　in　caves；　from　lighting　fires；　from　picking　berries；　from　gathering　herbs　and　boiling　them　in　a　bit　of　baked　clay；such　a　man　could　not　live。　　Consequently　the　earthlike　water；　air；　and　lightis　a　primary　object　of　necessity　which　each　has　a　right　to　use　freely；　without　infringing　another's　right。　　Why；　then；　is　the　earth　appropriated？　　M。　Ch。　Comte's　reply　is　a　curious　one。　　Say　pretends　that　it　is　because　it　is　not　FUGITIVE；　M。　Ch。　Comte　assures　us　that　it　is　because　it　is　not　INFINITE。　　The　land　is　limited　in　amount。　　Then；　according　to　M。　Ch。　Comte；　it　ought　to　be　appropriated。　　It　would　seem；　on　the　contrary；　that　he　ought　to　say；　Then　it　ought　not　to　be　appropriated。　　Because；　no　matter　how　large　a　quantity　of　air　or　light　any　one　appropriates；　no　one　is　damaged　thereby；　there　always　remains　enough　for　all。　　With　the　soil；　it　is　very　different。　　Lay　hold　who　will；　or　who　can；　of　the　sun's　rays；　the　passing　breeze；　or　the　sea's　billows；　he　has　my　consent；　and　my　pardon　for　his　bad　intentions。　　But　let　any　living　man　dare　to　change　his　right　of　territorial　possession　into　the　right　of　property；　and　I　will　declare　war　upon　him；　and　wage　it　to　the　death！
  M。　Ch。　Comte's　argument　disproves　his　position。　　〃Among　the　things　necessary　to　the　preservation　of　life；〃　he　says；　〃there　are　some　which　exist　in　such　large　quantities　that　they　are　inexhaustible；　others　which　exist　in　lesser　quantities；　and　can　satisfy　the　wants　of　only　a　certain　number　of　persons。　　The　former　are　called　COMMON；　the　latter　PRIVATE。〃
  This　reasoning　is　not　strictly　logi